mobile-authored page to describe / summarize episode content.

download link is at

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/09/idea-development-page-13/#Egodeath-Mystery-Show-Episode-136

1:30 probly starts w reading my 2006 Plainc 🍄 fresco article after ” buried-away endnote”

read Brown 2019 article excerpts: defining the psychedelic gospels theory.

main topic: mushroom imagery in itself means mushrooms regardless of baloney claims that

🍄 doesnt mean 🍄

🍄 doesn’t represent 🍄

which are meaningless nonsensical statements like:

this does not mean a circle: ⭕️

⭕️ <– doesn’t mean circle

a nonsense claim. a false claim.

Wasson’s nonsensical depiction of Panofsky’s argument convinced Robert M. Price, the Editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism! (a center of the field of ahistoricity)

this episode has solid quality content.

Timestamps

Timestamps Nice: big limitation of timestamps here is, not credible; my player app gives very dubious timestamps.

Production: Minimizing Overhead

it went really well my approach to creating this episode. downside of skipping detailed production steps: might be quiet, a single long 3.x hour mp3.

I created very clean raw voice recordings via strategic short recordings & other combined strategy of clean initial recordings to require almost no processing, thank goodness.

Cutting production time ratio… max recording time, + minimum production time is crucial.

Michael Hoffman, May 11, 2022 7:47 pm UTC+0

_{Site Map}

Contents:

• Intro
• Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels
• The Ardent Psychedelic Gospels Theory
• See Also

Intro

A major milestone event in the field of entheogen scholarship is Brown & Brown’s recent 2019 expose publishing the secret pair of letters (sans 2 plates) from Panofsky to Wasson.

We are in the Post-Publishing era of entheogen scholarship now that Brown June 1, 2019 has published the suppressed pair of letters from Panofsky to Wasson, which Wasson tried to hide and censor and cover-up the extreme impotence and brazen self-contradiction of Panosfky’s manifestly embarrassingly poor and weak argumentation and total lack of art historians’ treatment of the problem-for-them mushroom trees & mushroom imagery all throughout Christian art.

Wasson hid the flimsy citation of Brinckmann’s book which Panofsky, in both censored letters, described as “little”.

Wasson lectured and insulted mycologists for not consulting art historians, while simultaneously censoring Panofsky’s citation of Brinckmann’s embarrassingly weak & thin treatment. https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

The lead Mycologist, John Ramsbottom, demolished and exposed Wasson’s bad-faith, committed-skeptic admission, without Wasson finding out for 17 years, 1953-1970. Poetic justice!

http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm 54-page article written prior to Browns’ revelation, pre-Publication of the secret pair of censored, covered-up letters which reveal the totally flimsy case and specious argument that the art historians crowed and bragged about while doing a psychopathic level of insulting, abusing, & smearing, of Mycologists & artists alike.

The 2006 article accuses Wasson of withholding scholarly citations, withholding any details of art historians’ alleged treatment of mushroom trees.

The article should be subtitled “Citation Frickin Needed!! (& Withheld by Wasson the Anti-Scholar Obstructionist to Investigating Mushrooms in the History of Our Society)”.

I knew that Panofsky’s massive huge claims surely must be accompanied by what the first thing any scholar would do: give citations.

Panofsky cited Brinckmann’s book and provided two images, which Wasson misleadingly suppressed, a repeated set of lying by omission, omitting many relevant aspects of Panofsky’s pair of letters.

Gordon Wasson misrepresented Panofsky’s pair of letters, and withheld Panofsky’s poor argumentation, and weak, totally unconvincing evidence that would get people to pursue asking more questions about the additional, exposed examples of mushroom trees.

Omit art, call people insults in text only, to prop up the art historians’ indefensible denial of the self-evident.

“This whole thing stinks, something is fishy!”, I said in 2006 , “Any art historian making such a massive claim would provide citations.

So why doesn’t Wasson provide citations and demand citations from the top art historian scholar??!! This stinks; I smell a rat!”

Deceit & misrepresentation to mislead the world away from the OBVIOUS mushroom referent, but even the Editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism, Robert M. Price, in his inadequate attention, fell for Wasson’s deception propaganda.

Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels

Abstract:

“In light of new historical evidence regarding ethnomycologist R. Gordon Wasson’s correspondence with art historian Erwin Panofsky, this article provides an in-depth analysis of the presence of entheogenic mushroom images in Christian art within the context of the controversy between Wasson and philologist John Marco Allegro over the identification of a Garden of Eden fresco in the 12th century Chapel of Plaincourault in France.

“It reveals a compelling financial motive for Wasson’s refusal to acknowledge that this fresco represents Amanita muscaria, as well as for Wasson’s reluctance to pursue his hypothesis regarding the entheogenic origins of religion into Christian art and artifacts.

“While Wasson’s view – that the presence of psychoactive mushrooms in the Near and Middle East ended around 1000 BCE – prevailed and stymied research on entheogens in Christianity for decades, a new generation of 21st century researchers has documented growing evidence of A. muscaria and psilocybin-containing mushrooms in Christian art, consistent with ethnobotanist Giorgio Samorini’s typology of mushroom trees.

“This article presents original photographs, taken during fieldwork at churches and cathedrals throughout Europe and the Middle East, that confirm the presence of entheogenic mushrooms in Christian art: in frescoes, illuminated manuscripts, mosaics, sculptures, and stained glass windows.

“Based on this iconic evidence, the article proposes a psychedelic gospels theory and addresses critiques of this theory by art historians, ardent advocates*, medieval historians, and conservative Catholics.

“It calls for the establishment of an Interdisciplinary Committee on the Psychedelic Gospels to independently evaluate the growing body of evidence of entheogenic mushrooms in Christian art in order to resolve a controversial question regarding the possible role of entheogens in the history and origins of Christianity.” – Brown & Brown

The Ardent Psychedelic Gospels Theory

Brown defines the psychedelic Gospels theory in a extremely basic way, that:

Early and medieval Christians got their inspiration experiences from visionary plants.

not a trace of limitation, restriction, reduction, the Suppression paradigm, the 1970 Allegro/Ruck “secret underground suppressed forgotten hidden encoded” paradigm that Allegro/Ruck, the Dr. Secret Amanita team emphasizes.

Brown silently sneaks in the word ‘all’ by the striking notable lack of any restrictive qualifiers which is Carl rut’s signature move.

It doesn’t make sense for Brown to speak in terms of the Ardent Advocates “arguing against” the psychedelic Gospels Theory.

Brown is a closeted Ardent Advocate agreeing with me and Jan Irvin and John Rush: the Maximal entheogen theory – the Normalcy theory of entheogens, rather than the Suppression theory of entheogens.

The dispute over the vial or blurry images is merely a dispute among the Ardent Advocates, who all hold & assert the psychedelic gospels theory.

in the aftermath of this article, the distinction, the false dichotomy between the psychedelic gospels theory “versus” the Ardent Advocates collapsed.

That false distinction was just a stance, a ploy, a marketing move, trying to strategy give the appearance that you should prefer the psychedelic gospels theory because it’s not crazy like these guys who go too far.

Brown artificially tried to depict Jan Irvin and John Rush and Egodeath.com (pride of place listed first in the section Ardent Advocates 🎉) as bad guys who go too far, to steer people away from asserting too many mushrooms, a strategy of sending people to the psychedelic gospels theory instead of to the Ardent Advocates, who see too many mushrooms.

Brown set up a false dichotomy by listing Ardent Advocates as an opposing position to the psychedelic gospels theory.

Brown tried to sell the psychedelic gospels theiry as a Moderate, ie compromised, self-canceling, diminutive theory, just like Allegro/Ruck’s Suppression paradigm.

Brown tried to side with the those who emphasize the absence of mushrooms, who hold that entheogen use was 1/10 of 1%, of secret underground hidden Suppressed rare abnormal deviant users, which is the Allegro/Ruck 1970 paradigm.

The psychedelic gospels theory is a fundamentally different paradigm, that entheogen use was mainstream and normal and not hidden and Suppressed, in early & medieval Christianity.

The psychedelic gospels theory is grouped with the Ardent Advocates, against the Dr. Secret Amanita team.

Anyone, no matter how ardent, who asserts that Christians got their inspiration from visionary plants automatically affirms the psychedelic gospels theory, as it is simply defined by Brown.

I don’t really think it works the way Brown tried to include the ardent Advocates in the list of positions/people that they’re defending the psychedelic Gospels Theory against.

There are particular disagreements between people, but it is not the case that John Rush rejects the psychedelic gospels theory.

Same with Jan Irvin and me.

it was just a lax approach to list ardent advocates as though they disagreed, in a list of people who disagree with the psychedelic gospels theory.

Irvin & Rush & I don’t deny the psychedelic gospels theory.

Brown screwed up by using the serrated base to falsely reject the deliberately Amanita-styled vial as intending amanita; this is a detail correction, not a theory rejection, & Brown needs to be a more ardent advocate than in 2019 by adding the Mytheme theory of analogical psychedelic eternalism.

Irvin was largely right, Brown largely erred; both were incomplete. The tapestry means a vial styled as Amanita, with vial proportions.

Browns’ theory is right but not ardent enough to fit the data & provide coherent, complete interpretation. – Cybermonk

“yeah, your poor little pictures & that little, 1906 book by Albert Erich Brinckmann aint gonna do the trick; i’ll pass, and resort to intimidation, posturing, & name-calling insults, pressure tactics, instead of revealing your evidence for critical consideration, which isn’t going to go our way.

And your branch-omitting argument just raises too many questions and invites investigation, which we are striving to head off.

I’ll handle this.

We’ve already let on too much, by exposing the fact of hundreds of mushrooms trees, which is liable to backfire on us, big-time.” – rgw

OSC-limited old fogie Robert M. Price, who uses the Prohibitionists’ lingo “hallucinogens”, disrespected Acharya S’ Allegro-favorable view as “a bit of pot-smoking hippie apologetics”, and Price was all too eager to lap up the Panofsky->Asson Prohibition-compliant horsesht claim that mushroom imagery in Christian art doesn’t connote mushrooms.

No coincidence that Price’s out-of -touch, squaresville (ordinary-state-based only) wife Carol Price wrote a clueless, psychedelics-free book about Rush lyrics.

These out of touch people, selectively “critical thinkers”, are exactly the kinds of half-attentive people that Wasson knew that he could fool, because of their biased presuppositions.

Wasson knows that we know he’s manifestly blowing smoke just in the exact same way as he just discussed with Eliade regarding arbitrary, prejudiced assumptions and baseless, intensely biased assertions about shamanism.

See Also

Site Map > Panofsky per Wasson
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/nav/#Panofsky

The ardent advocates of the sun-centered Copernican model act as if all physics everywhere is reasonably fit to that model, an eager band of cosmologists and overly Ardent Advocates of their new theory, which they only embrace because it seems to support their theory.

But I consulted with the eminent top art historians, and these ignorant advocates of the sun-centered system, these blundering, isolated Copernicus advocates, have not adequately at all consulted the art historians on this matter.

In their unread ignorance, the Disciples Coperniiae have persisted in their blunder.

Presumably they are aware of the footnote in which I dismissed their misapprehension, which they have been under a misapprehension about this for more than half a millennium.

I demand a full engagement of this new theory, the Copernican sun-centered theory, needs to do a detailed, in-depth engagement of every last epicycle of every corrective patch that we put on our well-established, earth-centered, Ptolemaic cosmology system.

This field of entheogen scholarship must not be permitted to move forward until we have gotten full consensus from the Salvation Salesmen confirming that we have refuted every one of their water tight, super-convincing arguments in full detail, such as the impossible to refute argument that this one mushroom tree in Christian art cannot possibly mean mushrooms, because it’s not the only instance of this.

if only these idiots had known that there were other instances, they would’ve never have embarrassed themselves by suggesting that this one instance means mushrooms.

How are you ardent advocates of seeing mushrooms everywhere ever going to recover from this devastating argument??

And so you can see, your complete inability to refute our argument shows that you were just wrong in asserting that the Plaincourault fresco means mushrooms.

There is no way that you can argue against our “no mushrooms in Christian art” position, that the snake in the image means mushrooms, in a way …

The artist of this fresco had no inkling that by dumb coincidence, 1000 years before history (I am the first one to ever figure this out) but indeed the tree in the garden of Eden actually has a mushroom connection!! 🤯

You would never imagine such a thing, but my brilliance has brought this news to you, that there is actually a connection in the Plaincourault fresco image, through the serpent, which 1000 years before history began, used to be associated with the mushroom.

And so the stupid, ignorant painter, this especially ignorant craftsman, accidentally drew a mushroom-looking tree, unbeknownst to the painter, the mushroom-looking tree actually does have a connection with mushrooms – through the serpent, as known only to the very most astute historian (who is me) knows the ancient pre-history tradition that at one time, the serpent was actually considered the guardian and provider of the mushroom!

So this is why the new theory cannot be permitted to move ahead until the old theory is completely explained, to explain all the logic of the old theory, in full detail.

discussed in Egodeath Mystery Show episode 134c ~35:00

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/09/idea-development-page-13/#Ep134-Art-Historians-Got-Nothin

[private note to the leader of the ignorant, blundering, naive Mycologists:] Rightly or wrongly, I am going to reject the Plaincourault fresco as representing a mushroom.

The artist had no inkling that the Eden tree secretly has a long forgotten association with Amanita (via the serpent, which in pre-history, was considered the guardian and provider of the mushroom – a long-forgotten association that I’m the first one ever to figure out! 😊 🙌 ).

I’ve decided to abandon truth, coherence, intelligibility, and honesty, and join the anonymous writers’ committee of Dr. Secret Amanita and the evil M. Hoffman.

It’s easier sailing that way.

It turns out, Mirceau Eliade’s made-up load of arbitrary, intensely biased & prejudiced nonsense is the truth:

The great shamans of long ago were able to will themselves into the mushroom state without resorting to the crutch of the fake, simulated, modern, degenerate method, mushrooms.

http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm#_Toc135889223

Mushrooms Have No Place in Entheogen Scholarship

I now take it as granted that ancients all considered mushrooms as despicable and worthy of insult, as the anti-mushroom psychedelic witch Thomas Hatsis takes for granted, building his argument on the basis of that implicit assumption.

We know that Christians didn’t use mushrooms, because if Christians had used mushrooms, pagans would have leaped at the opportunity to smear Christians as vile users of mushrooms.

But pagans didn’t smear Christians as users of mushrooms; therefore, we know that Christians didn’t use mushrooms.

Use your head, people, duh! 😣

“the big problems laid out in this study: … How pagan authorities could accuse Christians of infanticide, incest, and cannibalism — far more appalling crimes than adulating a fungus — but not accuse them of eating a mushroom;”

The Dogmatist’s Debacle

Picking a Specialization

I’m picking a specialization now, having officially joined the ranks of the Entheogen Scholars.

🤔

What type of entheogen do you think I should specialize my scholarship in, since it’s customary to wed a single-plant fallacy, and I’m kind of done with the Psilocybin single-plant fallacy, since it restricts you to only 250 different species of Psilocybin-containing mushrooms, and I want to broaden out a little bit in my chosen single-plant fallacy that I push.

I think I’m going to specialize in exclusively pushing Wouter Hanegraaff’s non-drug entheogens.

book: Contemporary Esotericism; chapter: Entheogenic Esotericism

https://www.academia.edu/3461770/Entheogenic_Esotericism_2012_ –

“Although the terms “entheogen” and “entheogenic” were invented with specific reference to the religious use of psychoactive substances, it is important to point out – although this broadens[ie completely inverts & negates the essential purpose & definition into its opposite] current understandings of the term– that the notion of “entheogenic religion”, if taken literally, does not strictly imply such substances: after all, there are many other factors that may trigger or facilitate a state of ε’νθουσιασμός (“enthusiasm”), such as specific breathing techniques [ie hyperventilation = Psilocybin], rhythmic drumming, ritual prayer and incantations, meditation, and so on.

“This was already the case in antiquity[please ignore my footnote 3], and remains so today.

“It will therefore be useful to distinguish between entheogenic religion in a narrow[ie drug-based entheogens] and in a wide sense[ie non-drug entheogens]: with respect to the wider category[ie non-entheogen based entheogens], one could think of such cases as the ritual practices known as “theurgy”, described for instance by the third/fourth-century neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus,3[footnote: ‘may be plants‘] the complicated techniques known as “ecstatic kabbalah”, developed by the Jewish mystic Abraham Abulafia in the thirteenth century,4 or even the experience of being “filled by the Holy Spirit” in contemporary Pentecostalism.

“The historical evidence in Western culture for entheogenic religion in a narrow sense (that is, involving the use of psychoactive substances) is a contentious issue to say the least, and discussing it seriously would require a book-length treatment; but in order to establish that we are not pursuing a chimaera it suffices, for now, to point out that the existence of such kinds of religion in indigenous cultures is well documented, particularly in the Latin American context.5

“The present chapter will focus exclusively on one particular trend of contemporary entheogenic religion – in a narrow sense [ie drug-type entheogens ] – which may be defined as a form of Western esotericism and has not yet received the attention it deserves.”

“Footnote 3. See e.g. Shaw, “Theurgy”; Luck, “Theurgy and Forms of Worship”. Luck suggests that Neoplatonic theurgy may in fact have been entheogenic religion in the narrow sense[ie entheogen-based entheogens rather than non-entheogen based entheogens].”

Never trust an entheogen scholar.

Trust me on that; I’ve decided to become one of them.

Was there mushroom use in Christianity? Yes, but No.👎

Are you following my assertions?good. You are following my new mode of coherence.

I’ve ascended to the Ken Wilber Trans-Rational level, be sure to keep up.

Branches Prove that Mushroom Trees Don’t Look Like Mushrooms

Real, normal Christianity (the kind that counts) has never used mushrooms, despite all the mushroid Eucharist texts and mushroom imagery.

The mushroom-tree artists had no inkling of the archaic-only, forgotten, obscure, “serpent-provided mushroom” association, and they would be shocked, shocked! if you were some especially ignorant craftsman laboring under the delusion, stuck to a naive misinterpretation made as a band of ardent advocates, in your blundering misapprehension and error due to your naive ignorance & isolation, that the mushroom-looking distorted templates are impressionistically styled to consciously & intentionally produce the impression that art historians describe as mushroom-looking trees (which art historians actually refer to as ‘Pilzbaum’ in German texts).

The mushroom-looking impressionistic meaningless accidental distortions in this Italian Pine depiction have no connection whatsoever with intending mushrooms, and this image has no place in any mycology discussion.

But however, the serpent in this Italian Pine picture (in a way of which the artist had no inkling at all), back only in the archaic era, used to have an association with the mushroom.

But I am the only one who’s figured that out, ever since 1000 BC! 😊 🙌

However, note that Panofsky has proved that this serpent-looking animal can’t possibly be intended by the artist to mean a serpent, or else the artist would have omitted the legs altogether.

That’s my sincere public profession of faith position official stated stance, despite my resulting necessarily 8-way direct self-contradiction.

Read the Art History Publications About Mushroom Trees, You Ignoramuses!

Read an art history book, you ignoramuses!

(but I won’t name the one, litttle 1906 book that exists and briefly touches on this topic of trees that look so distinctly like mushrooms despite their having branches.)

You Screwed Up: You Trusted Us Entheogen Scholars

I’ve decided to join the ranks of the Entheogen Scholars – so be sure not to trust anything that I write, from now on.

you’ve been warned

details: Egodeath Mystery Show episode 134a https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/09/idea-development-page-13/#Ep134-Art-Historians-Got-Nothin maybe ~24:00 & last quarter ~1:40:00 (if you trust my app’s timestamp, which you’d have to be a gullible fool to do)

Contents:

• Book Citation
• Intro
• Rush’s Narrative Reveals He’s Striving to Separate Mushrooms from Christianity
• See Also

Book Citation

Rush, John. (2022). Jesus, Mushrooms, and the Origin of Christianity. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mushrooms-Origin-Christianity-John/dp/B09VWP4CV1/

Intro

Feb 2022, new, improved, more ardent, more blurry

Jesus, Mushrooms, and the Origin of Christianity: Second Edition

quick check CONFIRMED my theory: left heel lifted = relying on right leg –

= non-branching thinking = eternalism = moved from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control, in 🍄 Psilocybin loose cognitive state

lion explains

Rush also corrobs {lifted garment} which i heard from his book.

I read and posted years ago his book, but my memory of his art pieces is blurry and grainy

i developed successful mature ideas (mapping mythemes to loose cog dynamics experiencing) partly w Rush’s inadeq input, required decades of my idea development, not simple all at once, not moment in time, though bursts.

Years long testing mixed w corrobn & r&d.

Rush’s Narrative Reveals He’s Striving to Separate Mushrooms from Christianity

My critique of John Rush pushing the Secret Christian Amanita Cult theory. My expose of Rush’s narrative, contradicting his evidence, of his 2022 2nd Edition book:

John Rush’s No-Mushrooms Narrative vs. His Evidence Base
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/01/30/john-rushs-no-mushooms-narrative-vs-his-evidence-base/

See Also

John Rush gallery
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/12/20/john-rush-gallery/

John Rush – Jesus, Mushrooms, and the Origin of Christianity – 2nd Edition
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/05/09/john-rush-jesus-mushrooms-and-the-origin-of-christianity-2nd-edition/

Book citation:
Rush, John. (2022). Jesus, Mushrooms, and the Origin of Christianity. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mushrooms-Origin-Christianity-John/dp/B09VWP4CV1/

Status EOD May 10 2022:

next section to read aloud/record / comment, 10 left:

Excerpts from Allegro on Ahistoricity, Mushroom Use, and Wordplay Motive

Old Orig page content:

help

😵

day 4: 37% complete 😞

rate of stopping to fulminate against deceiver Wassson 💪 2x per 15 minutes

wasson’s mission was to obstruct and prevent investigation while pretending to criticize mycologists for not reading the art historians, at the same time he deliberately deceives mycologists by censoring out the one and only place where the art historians have ever discussed pilzbaum, because Wasson is all threats and all posturing and all big claims and personal insults left and right

and the only thing they got is this one “little” book (as Panofsky unhelpfully describes it both times in both of his two (2), count them TWO, count them two letters) is all you got!!

One lousy flimsy small “little” tiny totally unconvincing book from Brinckmann

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/

it’s no wonder Wasson censored it out

his job was to prevent people from investigating and replace it by a smoke and noise and thundering of no substance

because they got nothin

and any investigation Wasson knew perfectly well that if he were to invite investigation that the Mycologists and Allegro would instantly totally win

and so Wasson could not permit an investigation, and he tried intimidation, bluster, & harassment tactics instead, to try to shut down the conversation and prevent any actual investigation of Pilzbaum such as Samorini and I and Brown have called for

and so he yelled at Mycologists for being ignorant and not reading the art historians’ many, many (nonexistent) articles & books critically considering pilzbaum & reaching sound conclusions as the Authorities that Mycologists must submit to

while at the same time he hid their one and only book where the art historians ever treated the matter of Pilzbaum

they got nothin

Wason was hiding the fact that they got no citations and that they only have one single citation, of the one, “little” book.

and obviously the Mycologists and Allegro would not buy it, and they would have won, if Wasson had passed-on the one citation.

Wasson knows that the Mycologists and Allegro were right (of course) and that they would have won.

and that is why he did not give the one and only citation available.

it’s all empty posturing, pretense, bluff, con artist propaganda, nothing but that.

wasson didn’t believe a single word he said

he was manipulating and unethically deceiving everybody about his conflicts of interest & rudely deceiving and misleading everyone, trying to pretend like he only had the one letter,

trying to berate mycologists for not reading the art historians, and then turning right around and censoring out the one and only citation that they got

because they got nothin

and Wasson knew that if he let the Mycologists see this one “little” citation, witch Panofsky hardly helps his own case by saying they got only one citation and it is little; he twice says ” little” – he would invite (guaranteed) victory for the Mycologists & Allegro, and he knew it.

Wasson knew the Mycologists were right.

he knew perfectly well, of course.

but none of this should come as any surprise.

we just are discovering the minor details of what we knew was lurking underneath the whole time as soon as these liars denied Plaincourault with their pompous name-calling, posturing, and insults.

we already knew that

we only merely had to discover the details

it was clear already in 2006 I already said that it’s quite clear that they’ve got nothing, because they didn’t provide any citations

and Brinkman’s book was infinitely far from accomplishing what Panofsky wished to use it for, and Wasson knew it.

Wasson knew that to invite investigation by the Mycologists – rather than just insulting them for being unread – would guarantee that the Mycologists & Allegro would win & Wasson would lose, pope buddy would lose, the art historians would lose.

they all were putting on a show, of course this should not be a surprise to anybody

but it is sure ugly and infuriating to see the ugly details of Wasson’s deception.

However I do need to dig out my copy of soma to see:

does Wassons books list Albert Brinckmann’s book Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings – you know, the book which Wasson hand wrote the author’s full name and full title on Panofsky’s first of two letters, TWO (2) LETTERS

Jesus! This article is ridiculously long!! 😵

it just never stops

but it’s not because of repetition or anything

there’s just really is this much to say

this is kind of the whole Egodeath theory: it’s just a ton to say

it shouldn’t be a surprise that there’s so much to say

Art Historians Got Nothin

i developed that theme, spoken, at about Egodeath Mystery Show ep134b ~12:00 (dubious timestamp)

this little Brinckmann book is all you got??!! – Mycologists & Allegro to Wasson & Panofsky after Wasson’s decades-long harrassing & namecalling them & aggressive hot-air posturing

The high quantity and quality of my previous writings

Rummaging through the Egodeath Yahoo Group archives, it’s, as always, very impressive – lots of really top-quality: good writing, good theorizing, and massive quantities of it, and not filler material.

I always underestimate the quality and maturity that I expect to see in my earlier writings, and I find the opposite of Inferior; the opposite of lower quality;

I find I was aiming & hitting extremely high, and making a lot of, doing a lot with what I knew at any given time.

My old posts are best-case, not shambles that pale.

If anything, reading my Plaincourault article and archived posts makes me fear that my recent sloppy voice dictation and recent ideas lack innovation, and pale compared to my previous writings and breakthroughs.

there is a low degree of theory revision or correcting mistakes that’s needed.

instead, what I see is a building out; accumulation; extending; adding to; adding yet more.

it is not the case that the older ideas are lower quality and they have to be improved in their quality, but rather, they just have to be added to.

we could express this in terms of Paul Thagard’s book conceptual revolutions and his model of different types or categories of ways in which a theory is modified.

There is little correction needed of my previous theory, except only in the minor sense that I need to “correct” my ideas because they were not complete enough.

for example, Nov 2011 I said that I completed translating the language of mythology.

but that was false, because everything I translated so far was solid and valuable, of lasting quality, but just not complete.

for example, my dictionary at that time lacked adequate expansion of ideas about {left vs right equals branching vs non-branching}; or {left heel lifted}.

more than “posts”

describing them as “posts” I think is underestimating or under-selling them; they’re not just “posts”.

just like what I write now are not “web blog / blog entries”.

that is merely the medium for my expansive writing.

a so-called “post” or a so-called “discussion group post”, or a so-called “weblog/ blog entry” is not really what you find in my writing;

my writing transcends these little bucket designs.

Found a pre- Egodeath Yahoo Group, re-post of my March 2001 post to the Entheogens Yahoo Group: a massive, long, well-written, mature post.

My “posts” are consistently solid writing, consistently solid content.

It’s remarkable how much quantity of solid-quality work is necessarily involved, to match the ancients’ rather advanced language of Mythemese, which I have written the whole dictionary to translate this entire foreign language – no small, no mean endeavor!

A lot of sweeps across repeated themes (especially funny how my “very latest” points are made 10 years ago, the exact same points), but tangible accumulation of forward progress over the years, undeniably.

Motivation / focus of the present webpage

motivation for creating this webpage: a place to answer the mystifying question: what the heck did I announce on

Thanksgiving 2011 and

Thanksgiving 2012

if not duplicate of what I announced and discovered on

Thanksgiving 2013

or vs my first thinking of the branching question:

“isn’t branching vs nonbranching a major theme in mythology?” maybe October 2010, during hiatus from public posting at the Egodeath Yahoo Group.

not to mention discovering the formula {left vs right = branching vs non-branching} in the context of Canterbury Psalter, in November 2020.

March /April 2022

and the redundant duplicate realization of that same thing March 2022.

2015

not to mention dancing man {right foot equals eternity thinking} announced on Christmas 2015.

not to mention, the precursor to that announcement, posted on November 7, 2015.

Posts November 2011

Subject: Mythic metaphor code fully cracked

https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-110/#message5622

focus: male thought/injector vs female thought-receiver. not {branching}, here.

Posts November 2012

Su: Re: Key dates: Nov. 21, 2011: Deciphered metaphor “psyche = female”

https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-118/ – Says I did some {branching} work in 2011 & built on that in 2012. Commentary on building connections – the mountain range model.

Posts November 2013

incl dec 3 2013

Good indicator of what I did and didn’t figure out in 2013: the word “left-hand/ left arm” is missing, woefully 😞

from discovery of two seconds ago ( yesterday, or the day before) I realize the degree to which we have to ask:

is her {left heel lifted}?

i’m listening to the podcast Egodeath Mystery show from only two episodes ago extremely recent, I still failed to grasp obviously, Ariadne Holds branch specifically in left hand.

this is still this elementary kindergarten level realization of the obvious

regarding my mosaic Dionysus picture in my main article climax 2006, I only figured it out two seconds ago, and my most recent voice recordings still fail to realize that!! 🤯

🤯

she holds a mythical stylized palm branch.

here’s the kicker – even in the context of my hitting my head saying “why didn’t I realize that Eve holds the branch in her left hand” then I mention Ariadne – my failure to notice that she holds a branch or my failure to grasp the branching meaning of holding the branch – even in that context, I failed to realize that Ariadne holds the branch in the chariot specifically in her left hand (& contrasted with Dionysus Holding nonbranching Spear in right hand).

also at the moment in time just yesterday or couple days earlier, when I realized the Ariadne holds a branch or branching, did I at the same time contrast that against Dionysus holding a non-branching spear, or was that an hour or a day later??

and even then – here’s another thing that you would think that I would instantly simultaneously realize, that:

I failed to mention until an hour or a day later:

also if we’re going to be talking about Ariadne’s left hand, are you going to stupidly fail to mention her clothing held in left hand?

yes answer: yes, you are going to stupidly fail to mention at that same time, that not only does she hold a branch in her left hand, she also holds clothing in her left hand, which of course obviously demands interpretation; is a question that faces us.

what is the question that demands answering or else

how can you say I had a realization about the mosaic, if you fail to mention the clothing at the very same time that you mention holding her holding a branch?

how can you fail to mention at the same time that she’s holding her clothing?

and that obviously this mosaic demands elementary explanation of the clothing Theme.

you would have to be really pretty much affectively blind to fail to mention the clothing, at the same breath in which you mention holding Branch (also; along w clothing) in left hand.

Cybermonk 🙈 Examining Mystical Mythology Art 🚫👁

Even though clearly, {touching} is a major mechanism of this genre

🤦‍♂️

well I wouldn’t expect to realize that right away, since it was only the other day Christmas 2015 frickin six years five months ago 😖

it’s just a stupid cartoon drawing, which Thomas Hatsis explains shows a man overdosing from keeling over due to taking those noxious mushrooms that he warns us against

Hatsis the Fake Witch spreads his intense Anti-Mushroom Prejudice Bias

The Fake Witch Thomas Hatsis has an anti-mushroom prejudice bias.

Hatsis idiotically expects pagans to demonize Christians for ingesting the noxious and vile, despicable mushrooms.

His argument for how we know Christians did not use mushrooms is that pagans did not smear and defame Christians as users of mushrooms, therefore Christians must not have used mushrooms or pagans would have taken advantage of this moral defect.

– which reveals and exposes that Thomas Hatsis thinks that ingesting mushrooms is a moral defect.

and that he thinks (ie he UNTHINKINGLY ASSUMES; total failure to do historical thinking; fake historian) that pagans in antiquity thought the mushrooms were despicable and suppressed.

Hatsis’ implicit, evident, unthinking presupposition exposes & reveals that Hatsis is just another fool pushing the Suppression paradigm that’s typical of this rotten field of self-defeating failure; the loser field of entheogen scholarship.

Hatsis projects his own severe anti-mushroom prejudice onto pagans.

a fake witch, fake fake fake

Hatsis the good little Prohibition-compliant obedient trained lapdog 🐶 trying to cash in on the anti-Mushroom Psilocybin Prohibition scam fraudulent racket

Dancing Keeling

so it shouldn’t take more than maybe five minutes to analyze this silly Bestiary non-devotional Christian art, that doesn’t count as example of mushrooms in Christian art, because it’s non-devotional (according to the great esoteric theologian Thomas Hatsis), so it doesn’t count.

so it shouldn’t take more than about five minutes to analyze.

it certainly won’t require 6 1/2 years to realize the elementary basic elements of this simple cartoon picture 😑

voice mis-transcription

This terminology change from “Maximal/ vs Moderate vs Minimal” to simply “Normalcy vs Suppression” theories labels is in line with my move away from depending on technical jargon and specialized usage of words, and speaking more as simply & directly as possible. as the mystical artists do.

the Egodeath Yahoo Group posting Subject =

“entheogen use constant in religion” = my oct 2002 announcement of revolutionary Maximal theory, the maximal entheogen theory of religion, against the Suppression view,

To find this posting at EgodeathTheory wordpress site, you can find in the site map the “Announcement” page thats called “the maximal entheogen theory of religion” . The post is in archive page Digest 23 (that # 🤔 ) msg 1162

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2021/01/08/announcement-the-maximal-entheogen-theory-of-religion/

the post:

https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-23/#message1162

Mystical artists are always looking for the simplest and most elegant ways to express profound basic elementary Transcendent ideas.

For example {branching vs non-branching} is easy to depict, and easy to describe using commonplace words – not philosophy talk, or theology talk , or cognitive science talk, but ordinary daily language of common pop altered state language.

The so-called ‘Moderate’ and ‘Minimal’ entheogen theories of religion both agree, what they have in common, they both agree on suppression.

In my analysis below, an important realization is that the word ‘Moderate’, in its vagueness, is much too generous it implies 50% – but in fact, the Moderate position is far more stingy and defeatist: it only asserts half of 1% of knowledge and usage of entheogens among Christians.

Lately I’ve been on a big push to be sure to word yourself in a way that cannot be misunderstood.

Don’t allow people to project something like a too positive or too negative, or project the wrong plant onto your vague words.

I say “mushroom”.

But everyone hears me say “Amanita🍄🍄”

“I’m sure I heard you say ‘Amanita’.”

😞

🤬

You have to be vigorous and forceful in shutting out misreading of your meaning.

The term ‘Moderate’ was confusing to me because I have a Maximal mentality, so naturally I tend to be very generous and far overly generous:

When I read ‘moderate’, I think “50%”, but that’s inaccurate!

The Carl Ruck “Moderate” paradigm is extremely stingy, and he only asserts half of 1% of Christians had the knowledge; only half of 1% of Christians were esoteric, he says in the Ruck school paradigm, which is intensely negative.

To make matters worse, to make the problem worse, I make it even more confusing, by “differentiating” between minimal” “versus” moderate – AS IF there was any significant difference!

They are both extremely stingy! They only differ in the degree and timing of suppression, but they both emphasize Suppression and are based on that premise.

The Maximal entheogen theory of religion is not based on the shared Suppression assumption, which the Moderate & Minimal positions share in common.

As Cyberdisciple’s article is worded/titled:

“Against the Assumption of Suppression of Psychedelics in pre-modernity”

While recording today’s Egodeath Mystery show, my reading-aloud/commentary deviated from reading my 2006 article about allegro Wasson and Plaincourault Amanita Fresco:

I am reading aloud my six-page October 2002 announcement of the Maximal entheogen theory of religion.

I write a lot against the suppression hypothesis, in that posting.

it gives me some ideas for some better, more direct, less vague, names of the two opposed positions, now that I’ve analyzed the Moderate, Maximal, and Minimal positions more over the past months.

I have recently focused more on what the moderate and minimal positions have in common.

there is not actually a compelling need to differentiate those two positions, Moderate (Ruck) “versus” Minimal (McKenna).

Those two “different” positions both amount to the same thing, & they slip and slide between each other, and they were both just variations of the Suppression paradigm.

they both act the same way.

in this voice recording discussion today,

I am seeing strong agreements between me and Thomas Hatsis.

we disagree about which chemical: Hatsis says Scopolamine, I say Psilocybin.

The Monks and the Witches teams agree that Christianity is clearly characterized by the presence, not the suppression and absence, of visionary plants.

My announcement in October 2002 sounds so much like literally a prediction and an announcement of the 2020 Canterbury Miracle receiving of the message transmitted by Eadwine to me 18 years later, Nov 2020.

– not 20 years later; I made a math mistake in the voice recording – how completely unusual! inconceivable!

Hyper-specifically for clarity, I assert re-dosing powdered Cubensis, not Amanita – it’s pretty evident that what ancient & medieval Christians were using was Johns Hopkins branded synthetic Psilocybin gel caps.

When I look at pre-modern Christian texts and Christian art, what I see is descriptions of the experiences from re-dosing powdered Cubensis synthetic Psilocybin gel caps obtained from Johns Hopkins licensed clinics.

When Thomas Hatsis looks at Christian texts & art, what he sees is description & depiction of experiences from Scopolamine.

Neither of us see indications of Suppression of visionary plants; we see the opposite of that –

the dominant, Suppression theory doesn’t match the evidence.

The dominant theory is the Suppression theory – but the evidence instead loudly tells a story of Normalcy of visionary plants usage.

both of us have observed what I observed

in October 2002 I am saying the same words that Thomas Hatsis is saying in 2011 through 2022

we are contrasting

Thomas Hatsis and I have both spotted, soon after entering the field, we both quickly spotted a big disparity & a contrast:

on the one hand, we look at the dominant Theory in the Field of entheogen History

the dominant Theory is the Suppression Theory

but then it’s plain to see that Christian mythology is densely packed with intensive depictions of visionary experiencing everywhere, and the same in the texts;

the art & text evidence simply do not support the claim/paradigm of “suppression” which the McKenna/Allegro/Ruck/Muraresku school pushes!

Thomas Hatsis and I are both vigorously taking down the T McKenna defeatist Theory of Suppression of Visionary Plants in Christianity.

I want to destroy this terrible, awful Suppression hypothesis, which is an awful, terrible, harmful idea, and it’s wrecking and ruining the field & harming the repeal of Psilocybin Prohibition.

Thomas Hatsis and I agree that it is imperative, we’ve got to stop this noxious harmful, wrong, and false Suppression paradigm.

Thomas Hatsis and I can get on the same page more easily if I use more direct labels for the two opposed positions: the Normalcy vs. Suppression theories. rather than the confusing & vague to me labels, abstract, “Maximal vs Moderate” –

Plus the term ‘Moderate’ is much too generous, because the Carl Ruck school in fact is stingy

it’s very stingy

Dan Merkur is Stingy

they’re all stingy

When I say ‘Moderate’, you’re gonna read that in a generous way and think “oh they’re asserting 50%”

that’s wrong; in fact they assert only half of 1%! use & knowledge of visionary plants in ancient & medieval Christianity.

it is so misrepresentative and misleading to use the word ‘Moderate’ when they assert that only half of 1%! of Christians knew/ used visionary plants in pre- modernity.

i’m reading aloud my October 2002 proposition, and it says “25%”.

I just don’t resonate with that percentage.

I feel like it’s telling the confusing wrong story.

I’m inclined to say “33%” of Christians knew/understood visionary plants.

it helps me understand the mentality better to say 33% than 25%.

I have found my labels to be so confusing, my March 2003 labels & October 2002 that develop the terminology of maximal and maximum.

I found those labels to be too abstract too indirect.

I have to keep on checking and rechecking:

how did I define those abstract labels?

what exactly is the difference between the three positions?

what do you do when two of the positions keep on waffling between the two of them until functionally there are the same position – Minimal and Moderate?

the real question has become:

what’s the difference between the maximal position on the one hand, and the minimal/moderate position, on the other hand?

so clearly, this is a cumbersome, indirect, abstract labeling, that prevents Thomas Hatsis and me from understanding the commonality of our mission.

I need more direct labels that really put the finger on the exact spirit of difference between two opposed mindsets/ lenses.

what exactly is the difference, in a more direct identified way?

and I find I discover that

I wrote a lot about the word ‘Suppression’.

In October 2002, I announced the Maximal entheogen theory of religion by denouncing the suppression assumption –

so why not simply use the word ‘Suppression’ right in the label for the position that I am against?

and I’m pushing in that posting, I use the word ‘normalcy’ – why not just use the word ‘Normalcy’ for the position label, instead of creating a higher abstraction layer that obscures the main point of contention?

lately I keep on criticizing what the Carl Ruck school does to all positive evidence for Visionary Plants: he tries to frame it as abnormal; deviant; doesn’t count; an alien intruder approaching the Eucharist from outside of it.

and Cyberdisciple wrote a good webpage article in terms of the title “against the assumption of Suppression of Psychedelics in pre-modernity”.

Voice dictation, so have fun translating,

usually I clean these up to some extent, over time.

And the WordPress app just prompted me to give it a rating and I gave it a five star rating – but really well it’s not working very entirely well ie it has issues with voice transcription, not sure which software is to blame.

The combination of voice transcription with the wordpress app has a duplication bug, so deal with it , too damn bad. I will give you the benefit of telling you, describing the bug:

when I say “too many” words, there’s a bug and it chokes and it duplicates the whole block 💥💥

🙃🤖

We have a great episode of the voice recording Egodeath Mystery show for you today May 7, 2022 as I read through my article 2006 Wasson Allegro Plaincourault Amanita and

I just got a clear realization that, I didn’t really mean it seriously when I said “warning never trust an entheogen scholar, they are particularly especially the most untrustworthy worthy the most untrustworthy writers of them all” I warned and I joked.

but then I realized, that’s exactly what happened when Wasson warned us in the book soma, using Eliad regarding Shamanism:

Wasson warned us don’t believe a word that I write, because we write under coercion; we are forced to write a load of rubbish that we don’t believe – signed Wasson

he warned us in print

similarly Carl rock reiterated wassons warning

curl rock warned us in print, in the book the road to Eleusis

he warned us don’t believe a word that I write – signed, ruck

they are particularly especially the most untrustworthy worthy the most untrustworthy writers of them all I warned and I joked

but then I realized that’s exactly what happened when Wasson warned us in the book soma using Eliad

regarding Shamanism, Wasson warned us don’t believe a word that I write because we right under coercion; we are forced to write a load of rubbish that we don’t believe signed Wasson

he warned us in print

similarly Carl rock reiterated wassons warning curl rock warned us in print in the book the road to Eleusis he warned us don’t believe a word that I write – signed Carl Ruck

don’t believe a word that I write because look at exhibit A Eliade regarding Shamanism clearly didn’t believe his ridiculous patent nonsense on stilts that shamans no longer able to will themselves into the mushroom state of consciousness

then I forgot to go off about Carlos Ginsberg’s today, I was starting to get into that, but my exhibit A, my own exhibit a to seal the deal and make the point:

Ramsbottom publicly published Gordon wassons admission of being a lying deceiver be a bullsht artist and cover-up story

and I believe it was Jan Irvin who caught this

this was caught by him when we discussed 2006 Jan Irvin caught what happened, that:

Ramsbottom exposed Wasson as warning twice; we have two warnings from Wassen, that we should not believe his lying deceiving cover-up bullsht story.

in the book soma, Gorgon Wasson says:

never believe an “ethnomycologist”, because we write under coercion. like Eliade’s manifest nonsense on stilts.

secondly, as if to drive the point home, Gordon Wasson warned the mycologist Ramsbottom in a intended-private letter, “wrongly, we are going to publicly deny the obvious truth, that of course the Amanita Artist realized he was depicting Amanita Imagery , obviously”

but then the lead mycologist Ramsbottom took revenge on this lying deceiver “ethnomycologist” Aasson by publicly publishing wassons admission of being a deceiving liar cover-up bullsht operator and Wason didn’t discover that until Allegros books footnote – ha ha on Wasson, u deserved it!!

Young irvin discovered that Wason discovered through Allegro’s book in 1970 belatedly discovered that Ramsbottom had exposed Wasson as admitting privately to being a lying deceiver, writing assertions that he did not believe in

, and this corroborates what Wason publicly wrote in his warning in his book Soma, Wasson warned us:

never trust an “ethnomycologist”, because they’re always coerced into writing assertions which they disbelieve, insultingly stupid assertions such as “Amanita artists don’t recognize Amanita”

So I am renaming the Moderate Entheogen Theory: a second name:

“the Moderate (including Minimal) theory”

for one thing, I am deliberately coupling the Moderate with the Minimal position, because slip and slide, fluctuation, ever-changing:

the people who assert the moderate position also half the time change and assert the minimal position.

and half the time they shift back to assert the moderate position.

we see this with John Allegro. In one printing of his book, he says there was an “old tradition” of amanita lasting 1200 years.

then in the next edition, he removes the fresco and says no, there was only amanita use in the primitive original generation for 20 years only.

Then Jan Irvin , who is closer to maximal Position re-published Allegro’s book and ads plain mcruel fresco back in again,;

hats as claims that later printings omitted the planecrawl Fresco, which is very interesting, if you can trust Hatsis on anything. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. he’s only mostly dead wrong on absolutely everything.

then I am treating T McKenna as a special case, where he usually asserts the extreme archaic Psilocybin position, but then look his inconsistent, he puts a gigantic Amanita on the cover of his reading of his book, his audiobook Food of Only the Gods.

The hallmark characteristic –

Hatsis does not have a monopoly; Andy Letcher does not have a monopoly on being shifting fluctuation moving the goalposts slip and slide, can’t decide what his position is, changes every two seconds, he contradicts himself constantly nonstop.

The very defining character of the Moderate Entheogen Theory of Religion is that it constantly flips between the minimal and moderate position, and its inconstancy and constant self-contradiction.

were there mushrooms?

yes but no.

Both Wasson and Carl Rut warn us “never believe published entheogen scholars’ public profession of faith commitment official positions is a bunch of lies”

they tell us “beware, look at Eliad manifest nonsense he wrote about shamans”:

that they used to be able to will themselves into a mushroom state of consciousness, but no longer.

you’d have to be an idiot to believe that.

obviously Eliade cannot possibly believe his own position faith-statement profession. prohibition/ prejudice compliant, toe the line, self-contradict.

and this is typical of the field of entheogen scholarship under the garbled self-contradictory moderate/minimal/ever-fluctuating, compromised, coerced, lying, deceptive, Weasley, prevaricating, self-defeating position called the moderate/minimal/never trust an Entheogen Scholar’s writing, according to Gordon Wasson

Wasson both publicly and privately asserted and admitted to John Ramsbottom the mycologist and according to Carl rock in the equally important foundational book the road to Eleusis said, he wrote “never trust the written public position/faith statements professions of faith commitment assertions of us academic entheogen scholars”.

The “revenge of the mycologists” is:

Gordon Wasson the “ethnomycologist” insulted mycologists, who simply assert that planecurl means Amanita.

and Wassen is forever smearing and disrespecting and insulting the mycologists and pretending that Wassen as an “ethnicmycologist” is somehow superior to the mycologists, who simply truthfully assert that obviously plaincorralled means amanita.

and so in retaliation, the lead mycologist Ramsbottom published in his book Wasson’s admission of being a deceptive liar con artist BS bullsht artist giving a load of malarkey cover-up story with an insultingly preposterous assertion that “Amanita artists have no idea that they represented Amanita.” 😑

Jan irvin determined that Ramsbottom retaliated against the insults levied by Gordon Wasson against the mycologists by publicly publishing Gordon Wasson’s admission of “Wrongly, we are committed to, going to pretend and assert something we know to be a falsehood: we are going to assert the Amanita imagery does not mean Amanita, and the Christian artists are that stupid that they don’t recognize their own mushroom imagery as delivering the impression of mushroom imagery.”

The Moderate and Minimal entheogen theory (same diff) are insulting to artists, and insulting to the mycologists, who were 100% correct in obviously identifying the planecrawl fresco as Amanita and then suffering Gordon Wasson inventing his fabricated field of deceit and deception and lying called “ethnomycology” and proceeded to smear an insult and lie – and then privately admit to Ramsbottom, the head mycologist, that Gordon Wasson is putting on a pretext, “rightly or wrongly we are going to assert manifest self-contradictory nonsense, that Amanita imagery in art does not mean amanita”

and remember Wasson himself warned us in his public book soma,

he warned us never trust an “ethnomycologist”, because look what nonsense Eliade was forced to write, which clearly he could not possibly have believed him in himself, any more than Dan Merkur could possibly believe that “gnostics did not eat mushrooms, because they never eat anything physical.” 😑

this is manifestly a preposterous assertion that the author could not possibly believe and Gordon Wasson as a BS artist explains to us that Eliad is bullshtting us obviously serving as a warning Gorgon Wasson wrote us the warning:

never trust published position statements of faith, which are lies written by entheogen scholars under coercion.

The Moderate/ phony, posturing, self-contradiction, prevaricating Moderate entheogen theory of religion serves the purpose of reducing & restricting mushrooms from our religious history, in servile, compliant service to the Salvation Salesmen & Meditation Hucksters.

The takeaway is that whenever you read the alleged position statements put forth for public consumption by Wasson and the Moderate entheogen theory of religion, including the Carl Ruck school, realize that they have already given you given you the warning:

they have warned you never trust an “ethnomycologist”, because we write bullsht that we don’t believe in, in order to serve our Prohibition overlords.

we are professional liars who serve to minimize and deny and remove and constrain mushrooms in our religious history.

when you read their position statements you have to remember they already

and us never believe the written public Position statements written by any entheogen scholar because we write under coercion

witness exhibit A, Eliad , who wrote rubbish that he could not possibly have believed in himself, that shamans used to be able to will themselves into mushroom consciousness, but now in the modern era, they lost that ability – manifest horsesht!!

you might as well believe Carlos Ginsberg the psychedelic witch historian the psychedelic which the psychedelic history and Carlos Ginsberg, who falsely writes that he has “proved” that witches fertility cult practices can induce the same experience as Psilocybin Mushrooms or Amanita – and if you believe that, then we entheogen scholars have several bridges to sell you & valuable marshland real estate, if you’re that fcking gullible

“I warned you”; Wasson warned you in the book soma, he said watch out, look at what Eliad had to write, was forced & coerced into writing obvious self-contradictory nonsense on stilts.

and Carl rock warned you in the book the road to Eleusis exhibit A Eliade regarding nonsense about shamans

and also Wassen privately admitted to the lead mycologist Ramsbottom that wrongly we are going to falsely assert something that we know to be false: we are going to tell the cover-up story that “amanita artists had no idea that they were depicting Amanita Imagery”

And then Ramsbottom publicly published Wassons private admission of deceit and cover-up story practices on the part of the fraudulent Phony pretenders posers, ethno mycollegests.

So much for the credibility of “ethnomycologists”, prancing posers & put-on artists.

Such is the defining character of the Moderate entheogen theory of religion.

The scholars who assert the Moderate entheogen theory of religion don’t even believe their own cover-up bullsht stories.

so remember that, when you read the writings of the Moderate Carl Ruck’s school , remember that they have giving you the warning already, “don’t take our preposterous & prevaricating assertions seriously, because we write under coercion.“

So I am pretty much done with the category of the “Minimal” Entheogens Theory – it is as unimportant as the category of the Hylics compared to the Psychics and Pneumatics in the gnostic system of the three kinds of thinkers.

I see the way clear now to have a nice clean elegant Max Freakout compatible simple clarifying to position to positions system instead of three positions we really only need the Maximal Position and then the moderate Position in the Moderate Position can completely flip-flop and slip and slide to cover the minimal position as well on every other Tuesday

because the inconsistency of it and the self-contradiction of it are the distinguishing hallmarks

there is no steady distinction between moderate versus Minimal

it’s all The same prevaricating shifting fluctuating in constant self-contradictory across time

one day you assert X; the next day you assert Y; it’s all the same shiite.

The only stable, steady, constant, determinate, specified, non-self-contradictory position is my Maximal entheogen theory of religion.

And practically there’s only one other position and that is the we can simply call at the moderate position (and enfold the minimal position which it shifts back-and-forth between).

No choice but to create webpage announcing art theme of lifted left heel

all the content is already posted and written up in the past couple of webpages

left heel slightly lifted? hard to tell.

he may be keeling over dead, as per Thomas Hatsis’ masterful interpretation, as the most influential art historian, displacing even the great Erwin Panofsky, who Gordon Wasson so praises as “competent at Romanesque art” – competent except at all the standard mystical motifs, like {lifted left heel}.

Recording Egodeath Mystery show right now May 7, 2022 and I must never sell myself short on these art theme breakthroughs you have seen me in the past couple days ask why are the foot positions so consistent in this art genre are the left foot lifted and then I discovered the lien in the important amazin Eustace Window and the lion instructed me yes Monte Cassino past years Adam and eve and both versions

of the scene have their left foot heel lifted just like the two left paw heels of the lions are floating in space

this is a definite significant widespread theme and the more I look for it the more I’m getting confirmation this is a significant theme

and what I’ve learned in the past few weeks couple weeks I need to just go ahead and make a webpage because this order of importance magnitude pans out consistently

I can recognize pretty readily pretty straight away

& another webpage that I would have to create is yesterdays Decoding of diomysus Victory procession mosaic procession mosaic ariadne Holds garment in left arm in her left arm where is in contrast Dionysus is closed clothed with sacred “new mental model” clothing.

wears his sacred garment of new mental model

and I have recently very recently developed ideas about contrasting clothed veiled unveiled and flesh fburned away to reveal underlying skeleton structure per Brown analysis of plane corral fresco

yesterdays Decoding of diomysus Victory procession mosaic procession mosaic ariadne Holds garment in left arm in her left arm where is in contrast

wears his sacred garment of new mental model and

I have recently very recently developed ideas about contrasting closed veiled unveiled and flash burned away to reveal underlying skeleton structure per Brown analysis of planecorral fresco eve ribs

May 9, 2022

quick check indicates hokeypokey Christ feet corroborate per John Rush http://www.clinicalanthropology.com/jesus-mushrooms-origin-christianity/

a quick check of Rush online pics CONFIRMED my theory: left heel lifted = relying on right leg instead of left leg –

= non-branching thinking = eternalism = moved from literalist ordinary-state possibilism with autonomous control, to analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control, in Psilocybin loose cognitive state